>> > Depends what you mean by "reject". If someone wrongly believes that
> > Genesis creation is
> > some kind of metaphor or abstract description, it's not really a
> > salvation issue is it? Nor
> > is it profitable to try and force everyone else to believe your point of
> > view, (which could
> > alienate people with fixed ideas in that area).
>> You raise a good point. My main line of reasoning is if someone says
"Well,
> that's just a myth" or "That's outdated, science has disproved Genesis,"
not
> someone who misinterperates the fact that Genesis creation is literal
rather
> than a metaphore. Then again taking too much of the Bible as a metaphore
> could also cause major problems, but that's a whole different can of
worms.
In my usual messy not so pretty way I believe I have an interpretive postion
that "can" resolve the interpretive issues between science and literalism
without resorting to metaphore, at least for most of the usual problematic
stuff. I dont claim it will "satisfy" anyone, but it has it's moments.
OTOH my first question always seems to be Why are you asking me about
Genesis if you are already ready to tell me the answer?
The problem with Genesis is that it is obviously written NOT to be a
metaphore, or mythical story about creation. It is the only creation story I
know of in any religious text that trys to be literal at all. Most of them
are stories that are full so chock full of allegory you can hardly make
hide nor hair of them.
The attempt to reconsile science to Genesis annoys scientists because the
story in Genesis has credibility that they can not debunk, no matter how
hard they try. They want to own their own credibility. Science after all,
actually functions as a religion in all the sociligically important ways
(dont wory I am not preaching, this is trying to be teaching). It even has a
salvation myth, it is wrong, but it has one, "new discoveries are being made
all the time, surely the next big thing will be the answer". It never is,
but lots of people keep the faith. The genetics stuff is the latest fad,
looking for the elixer of eternal youth I suppose. (God help us if they
"find it", but I digress.)
Some people of faith dont like the way Genesis fits together for scientists,
but there is nothing in the story you can point to and say "that directly
contradicts scientific understanding". You may need to interpret scripture
to 'make it fit', but fit it will, and without doing violence to the text.
It might do violence to a pet notion or two, but not the text itself.
That of course does not mean that "science is right" and traditional
interpreters are wrong. It means life is complicated, and will continue no
matter what I think of it. Lots of things besides this scripture inform me
that I dont know it all. My wife for instance. And the annoying thing about
science is that the next big thing that comes along always seems to change
the story, so my assertion about there being no contradiction is actually
'none so far'. So the parts of Genesis that matter and give each side the
fits are also the parts that are veiled in mystery language. Is a day a day
day, or a epoch day? It doesent say. It just says it is a day.
Some how I know that I know that God planned it that way. He set us up. We
have a problem with Genesis because God wants us to have a problem with
Genesis. He knows it matters, He choose the words, and we are stuck with
them. And strangely enough, it amounts to being stuck with each other. It is
perhaps a veiled alegory, but I really think that God through the Genesis
story, manages to insist that our relationships with each other matter more
than even the reason we exist. It is a really pretty pickle when you think
about it.
Michael